6522 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No.
28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / Notices
Rescission of the Administrative
Review
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), the
Secretary will rescind an administrative
review under this section, in whole or
in part, if a party that requested a review
withdraws the request within 90 days of
the date of publication of notice of
initiation of the requested review. See
19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Mueller,
Southland and Hylsa have withdrawn
their requests in a timely manner.
Therefore, we are rescinding this
review. The Department intends to issue
assessment instructions to U.S. Customs
and Border Protection 41 days after the
date of publication of this rescission of
administrative review. See section
356.8(a) of the Department’s regulations.
This notice serves as a reminder to
parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the
disposition of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely
written notification of the return or
destruction of APO materials or
conversion to judicial protective order is
hereby requested. Failure to comply
with the regulations and terms of an
APO is a sanctionable violation.
This notice is published in
accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and
777(i)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as
amended, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
Dated: February 6, 2007.
Stephen J. Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretaryfor Import
Administration.
[FR Doc. E7–2348 Filed 2–9–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
(A–485–803)
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review and Final
Partial Rescission: Certain Cut–to-
Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On September 11, 2006, the
Department of Commerce (‘‘the
Department’’) published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on certain
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
cut–to-length carbon steel plate (‘‘cut–
to-length plate’’) from Romania. The
review covers Mittal Steel Galati, S.A.
(‘‘MS Galati’’) a Romanian producer/
exporter of the subject merchandise.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Feb 09, 2007 Jkt 211001
This administrative review also covers
Metalexportimport SA (‘‘MEI’’), an
unaffiliated exporter for which the
Department is rescinding this review.
The period of review is August 1, 2004,
through July 31, 2005.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dena Crossland or John Drury, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 7, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street & Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–3362 or (202) 482–
0195, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 11, 2006, the
Department published the preliminary
results of the administrative review of
the antidumping duty order on cut–to-
length plate from Romania. See Certain
Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
Romania: Preliminary Results of the
Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review and Partial Rescission, 71 FR
53377 (September 11, 2006)
(‘‘Preliminary Results’’). We invited
interested parties to comment on the
Preliminary Results.
On October 11, 2006, we received
case briefs from MS Galati and the
domestic interested party IPSCO Steel
Inc. (‘‘IPSCO’’). Additionally, on
October 11, 2006, we received a letter
from petitioner, Nucor Corporation
(‘‘Nucor’’), stating its support for the
case brief filed by IPSCO. We received
rebuttal briefs from IPSCO, Nucor, and
MS Galati on October 18, 2006. On
October 11, 2006, MS Galati requested
a public hearing in this review, but
withdrew its request on October 20,
2006. Therefore, no public hearing was
held.
Final Partial Rescission
We preliminarily determined to
rescind the review with respect to MEI
because we found during verification
that MEI is not the producer of subject
merchandise, MEI does not take title to
the merchandise which MS Galati
exports through MEI, and MS Galati has
knowledge of the destination of its
subject merchandise exports. See
Preliminary Results. No parties
commented on this issue. Therefore, we
have received no new information or
evidence of changed circumstances that
would cause the Department to
reconsider that determination. Thus, we
are finally rescinding the administrative
review with respect to MEI.
PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
include hot–rolled carbon steel
universal mill plates (i.e., flat–rolled
products rolled on four faces or in a
closed box pass, of a width exceeding
150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250
millimeters and of a thickness of not
less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and
without patterns in relief), of
rectangular shape, neither clad, plated
nor coated with metal, whether or not
painted, varnished, or coated with
plastics or other nonmetallic substances;
and certain hot–rolled carbon steel flat–
rolled products in straight lengths, of
rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither
clad, plated, nor coated with metal,
whether or not painted, varnished, or
coated with plastics or other
nonmetallic substances, 4.75
millimeters or more in thickness and of
a width which exceeds 150 millimeters
and measures at least twice the
thickness, as currently classifiable in the
HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000,
7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000,
7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000,
7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000,
7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000,
7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000,
7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000,
7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000,
7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and
7212.50.0000. Included under this order
are flat–rolled products of
nonrectangular cross-section where
such cross-section is achieved
subsequent to the rolling process (i.e.,
products which have been ‘‘worked
after rolling’’)--for example, products
which have been bevelled or rounded at
the edges. Excluded from this review is
grade X–70 plate. These HTS item
numbers are provided for convenience
and customs purposes. The written
description remains dispositive.
Analysis of Comments Received
The issues raised in the case briefs by
parties to this administrative review are
addressed in the Issues and Decision
Memorandum to David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary for Import
Administration, from Stephen Claeys,
Deputy Assistant Secretary (‘‘Decision
Memorandum’’), which is hereby
adopted by this notice. A list of the
issues addressed in the Decision
Memorandum is appended to this
notice. The Decision Memorandum is
on file in the Central Records Unit in
Room B–099 of the main Commerce
building, and can also be accessed
directly on the Web at http://
ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and
electronic version of the Decision
Memorandum are identical in content.
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1
 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / Notices 6523

Use of Facts Available Analysts, Regarding Verification of the 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act. Additionally,
As further discussed below, pursuant Home Market and U.S. Sales Responses MS Galati has not met the requirements
to section 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the of Mittal Steel Galati S.A. in the of section 782(d) because it did not
Department finds that the use of facts Antidumping Duty Administrative provide information to the Department
available (‘‘FA’’) is appropriate with Review of Certain Cut–to-Length Carbon to indicate that its inland freight
regard to MS Galati’s inland freight from Steel Plate from Romania, dated August expenses might be deficient until
the plant to the port of exportation 31, 2006, at 37 (‘‘MS Galati Verification verification. Because the Department
expenses for its U.S. sales. Section Report’’). MS Galati submitted tables did not find that there were any
776(a)(2) of the Act, provides that, if an showing a schedule of expected rates deficiencies until verification, it was too
interested party: (A) withholds but could not confirm that it paid those late to notify MS Galati of these errors,
information that has been requested by rates as reported in the U.S. sales obtain new data, and examine such
the Department; (B) fails to provide such database. methodologies and data for deficiencies.
information in a timely manner or in the At verification, MS Galati explained
Since MS Galati provided information
form or manner requested; (C) that the freight rates charged by its
that could not be fully verified, the
significantly impedes a proceeding transportation companies vary by
Department determines that the
under the antidumping statute; or (D) distance to the delivery point, and are
application of FA is warranted.
provides such information but the also based on various discounts from
However, we cannot conclude that MS
information cannot be verified, the the base price. MS Galati stated that rail
Galati did not cooperate to the best of
Department shall, subject to subsection shipments contain multiple products
its ability. As such, the Department
782(d) of the Act, use facts otherwise and go to multiple destinations.
determines that adverse FA pursuant to
available in reaching the applicable Therefore, unless the transportation
section 776(b) of the Act is not
determination. Section 782(d) of the Act company itemizes the bill, MS Galati
warranted. Even though information
provides that the Department must cannot determine the actual rate paid
provided by MS Galati regarding
inform the interested party of the nature for freight. While we were able to verify
transportation expenses was
of any deficiency in its response and, to the freight rates for one transportation
unverifiable because one of MS Galati’s
the extent practicable, allow the company, we were unable to verify the
transportation companies did not
interested party to remedy or explain freight rates for another transportation
provide itemized invoices, MS Galati
such deficiency. company that issued invoices to MS
did provide all the information it
We find that pursuant to section Galati without segregating the charges.
possessed as it related to transportation
776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, the application In the Preliminary Results, we applied
expenses, i.e., it acted to the best of its
of FA is warranted for the calculation of the base freight rate for the
ability. Therefore, we are applying the
MS Galati’s inland freight expense transportation company that did not
only discounted rate that could be
because MS Galati provided information provide itemized invoices to MS Galati.
In its October 11, 2006, case brief, MS verified for one of MS Galati’s
that could not be fully verified. In MS
Galati argued that it was not charged the transportation companies as the FA rate
Galati’s section C questionnaire
base freight rate, as shown in for calculating the inland freight to port
response, it provided data for its inland
freight to port expenses (field Verification Exhibit 33, which the expense for MS Galati’s U.S. sales. For
DINLFTP1U in the U.S. market sales Department used in the Preliminary a detailed analysis of the Department’s
database). Prior to verification, the Results. In its case brief, MS Galati decision to apply FA, see the Analysis
Department requested, at page 13 of its demonstrated that it had paid a certain Memorandum for the Final Results of
verification outline, that MS Galati be discounted rate. Pursuant to section the Administrative Review of the
prepared to provide documentation to 776(a)(2)(D) of the Act, we determine Antidumping Duty Order on Certain
support its inland freight to port that this discounted rate is the Cut–to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from
calculation. During verification, MS appropriate FA rate to calculate Romania, dated January 9, 2007 (‘‘Final
Galati stated that it was unable to DINLFTP1U for sales involving MS Analysis Memo’’).
segregate the freight charges for one of Galati’s second transportation company. Final Results of Review:
its transportation providers because the Based on the above, we find that MS
provider issued invoices to MS Galati Galati did not provide information As a result of our review, we
that were not itemized. See pertaining to its inland freight to port determine that the following margin
Memorandum to the File from John expenses that could be fully verified, exists for the period of August 1, 2004,
Drury and Dena Crossland, Case within the meaning of section through July 31, 2005:

Producer Margin (Percentage)

Mittal Steel Galati S.A. .............................................................................................................................................. 0.05 percent (de minimis)

Assessment The Department clarified its (e.g., a reseller, trading company, or

‘‘automatic assessment’’ regulation on exporter) was destined for the United
The Department shall determine, and
U.S. Customs and Border Protection May 6, 2003. See Notice of Policy States. In such instances, we will
(‘‘CBP’’) shall assess, antidumping Concerning Assessment of Antidumping instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed
duties on all appropriate entries. We Duties, 68 FR 23954 (May 6, 2003) entries at the 75.04 percent all–others
will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at (‘‘Assessment–Policy Notice’’). This rate if there is no rate for the
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES

the rate indicated above. The clarification will apply to entries of intermediary involved in the
Department will issue appropriate subject merchandise during the period transaction. See the Assessment–Policy
assessment instructions directly to the of review produced by MS Galati for Notice for a full discussion of this
CBP within 15 days of publication of which MS Galati did not know that the clarification.
these final results of review. merchandise it sold to an intermediary

VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:52 Feb 09, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1
 6524 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 28 / Monday, February 12, 2007 / Notices
Cash Deposit Requirements
Furthermore, the following deposit
requirements will be effective upon
publication of the final results of this
administrative review for all shipments
of cut–to-length plate from Romania
entered, or withdrawn from warehouse,
for consumption on or after the
publication date of these final results, as
provided by section 751(a) of the Act:
(1) for the company covered by this
review, the cash deposit rate will be
zero; (2) for merchandise exported by
producers or exporters not covered in
this review but covered in the
investigation, the cash deposit rate will
continue to be the company–specific
rate from the final determination; (3) if
the exporter is not a firm covered in this
review or the investigation, but the
producer is, the cash deposit rate will be
that established for the producer of the
merchandise for the most recent period;
and (4) if neither the exporter nor the
producer is a firm covered in this
review or the investigation, the cash
deposit rate will be 75.04 percent, the
‘‘Romania–wide’’ rate established in the
less–than-fair–value investigation.
These deposit requirements shall
remain in effect until publication of the
final results of the next administrative
review.
This notice also serves as a final
reminder to importers of their
responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402
(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the
reimbursement of antidumping duties
prior to liquidation of the relevant
entries during this review period.
Failure to comply with this requirement
could result in the Secretary’s
presumption that reimbursement of
antidumping duties occurred, and in the
subsequent assessment of double
antidumping duties.
This notice also is the only reminder
to parties subject to administrative
protective order (‘‘APO’’) of their
responsibility concerning the return or
destruction of proprietary information
disclosed under APO in accordance
with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written
notification of the return/destruction of
APO materials or conversion to judicial
protective order is hereby requested.
Failure to comply with the regulations
and the terms of an APO is a
sanctionable violation.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
We are issuing and publishing these
results and notice in accordance with
sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.
VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:45 Feb 09, 2007 Jkt 211001
Dated: February 2, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretary forImport Administration.
Appendix I
List of Issues in the Decision
Memorandum
Issue I. Date of Sale
Issue II. Application of Facts Available
for Inland Freight to Port Rate
Issue III. Provisions for Contingent
Liabilities
Issue IV. Short–term Interest Income
Offset
Issue V. Clerical Error Regarding the
Constructed Export Price Offset
Issue VI. Assessment Rate Methodology
[FR Doc. E7–2216 Filed 2–9–02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–DS–S
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
A–337–806
Notice of Final Results of Antidumping
Duty Administrative Review, and Final
Determination to Revoke the Order In
Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries from Chile
AGENCY: Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
SUMMARY: On August 8, 2006, the
Department of Commerce published the
preliminary results of the administrative
review of the antidumping duty order
on certain individually quick frozen red
raspberries from Chile. The review
covers seven producers/exporters of
subject merchandise. We gave interested
parties an opportunity to comment on
the preliminary results. We have noted
the changes made since the preliminary
results below in the ‘‘Changes Since the
Preliminary Results’’ section. The final
results are listed below in the ‘‘Final
Results of Review’’ section.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 12, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Yasmin Nair or Brandon Farlander, AD/
CVD Operations, Office 1, Import
Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20230;
telephone (202) 482–3813 or (202) 482–
0182, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 8, 2006, the Department of
Commerce (‘‘the Department’’)
published Notice of Preliminary Results
of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review, Notice of Intent to Revoke in
PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703
Part: Individually Quick Frozen Red
Raspberries from Chile, 71 FR 45000
(August 8, 2006) (‘‘Preliminary Results’’)
in the Federal Register.
On September 28, 2006, we extended
the deadline for parties to submit
comments on the Preliminary Results
until October 17, 2006, and we extended
the deadline for parties to submit
rebuttal comments until October 23,
2006. See Memorandum from Yasmin
Bordas to File, ‘‘3rd Administrative
Review of Individually Quick Frozen
Raspberries from Chile,’’ dated
September 28, 2006. We also informed
the parties that the Department would
accept comments relating to verification
findings for Sociedad Agroindustrial
Valle Frio Ltda. (‘‘Valle Frio’’) and its
affiliated processor, Agricola
Framparque (‘‘Framparque’’), seven
days after issuance of the verification
report, and that the Department would
accept rebuttals to those comments five
days later.
On October 17, 2006, the Department
received case briefs from the petitioners,
Pacific Northwest Berry Association,
Lynden, Washington, and each of its
individual members, Curt Maberry
Farm; Enfield Farms, Inc.; Maberry
Packing; and Rader Farms, Inc., and
respondents, Arlavan S.A. (‘‘Arlavan’’),
Fruticola Olmue S.A. (‘‘Olmue’’),
Santiago Comercio Exterior
Exportaciones S.A. (‘‘SANCO’’), Valle
Frio/Framparque, Valles Andinos S.A.
(‘‘Valles Andinos’’), Vital Berry
Marketing S.A. (‘‘VBM’’), and Alimentos
Naturales Vitafoods S.A. (‘‘Vitafoods’’).
On October 23, 2006, the petitioners,
Arlavan, Olmue, VBM, Valle Frio/
Framparque, and Valles Andinos filed
rebuttal briefs. On December 26, 2006,
Valle Frio/ Framparque filed comments
relating to their verification. We did not
receive rebuttals to the December 26,
2006 comments.
On October 25, 2006, we extended the
deadline for the final results to February
5, 2007. See Certain Individually Quick
Frozen Red Raspberries from Chile:
Extension of the Time Limit for the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Review, 71 FR 64244
(November 1, 2006).
Scope of the Order
The products covered by this order
are imports of IQF whole or broken red
raspberries from Chile, with or without
the addition of sugar or syrup,
regardless of variety, grade, size or
horticulture method (e.g., organic or
not), the size of the container in which
packed, or the method of packing. The
scope of the order excludes fresh red
E:\FR\FM\12FEN1.SGM 12FEN1